Most buildings are intended to have a long service life, usually over 50 or even 100 years. It is, thus, important to analyse all phases of their life, considering both the influence on environment and expenses. In order to do this precisely the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and the Life Cycle Costs (LCC) methods are used. There are many commonly used LCA and LCC software tools. They make it easier to control maintenance issues, and let their users accumulate all the data for the building. This paper takes into consideration several LCA tools
and presents the main assumptions concerning the LCA and LCC methods.
The most widely used theory of the LCA analysis is an approach described in International Standards ISO 14040, that assumes four phases of the LCA: Goal and scope definition, Inventory Analysis, Impact Assessment, and Interpretation. There are a few variants of life cycle assessment, namely cradle-to-grave, cradle-to-gate, cradle-to-cradle or gate-to-gate. For analysis in the building industry the most common method is cradle-to-grave approach, which best presents all the significant issues connected with buildings. The LCA of a building takes
into consideration phases such as material acquisition, creation, transportation, use, and finally the disposal of the products.
Strongly connected with the Life Cycle Assessment is the issue of the Life Cycle Costs. The LCC is used to help decision-making in all the phases of a building’s life. It ought to be taken into account that construction costs are only the beginning, and in further phases there will be
other costs connected with operation and management, or special costs (e.g. taxes).
Bridge Management Systems are based on the LCA and LCC methods. They have been
developed so as to help manage resources effectively and to maintain bridges in satisfactory condition. Bridge Management Systems assess the present condition of the bridge and they also intend to predict the future performance of a bridge.
[1]
B Lassen.
BRIDGE MANAGEMENT THROUGH THE INTERNET WITH DANBROWEB
,
2003
.
[2]
Toshio Fukushima.
Integrated life cycle design of materials
,
2002
.
[3]
Palle Thoft-Christensen,et al.
Life-cycle cost-benefit (LCCB) analysis of bridges from a user and social point of view
,
2009
.
[4]
R Ellis,et al.
IMPLEMENTATION OF ONTARIO BRIDGE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
,
2003
.
[5]
Fernando A. Branco,et al.
Handbook of Concrete Bridge Management
,
2004
.
[6]
J. Mencˇík.
Cost-based design and renewal strategy for long-life structures
,
2008
.
[7]
Palle Thoft-Christensen.
Corrosion and Cracking of Reinforced Concrete
,
2003
.
[8]
Ross B. Corotis,et al.
Societal issues in adopting life-cycle concepts within the political system
,
2009
.
[9]
Bryan T. Adey,et al.
Overview of existing Bridge Management Systems - Report by the IABMAS Bridge Management Committee (2014)
,
2014
.
[10]
L. Duffy.
Development of Eirspan: Ireland's bridge management system
,
2004
.
[11]
Núria Forcada Matheu.
Life cycle document management system for construction
,
2005
.
[12]
J Bien.
EXPERT FUNCTIONS IN BRIDGE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
,
1999
.
[13]
Allen R. Marshall,et al.
PONTIS BRIDGE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM: STATE OF THE PRACTICE IN IMPLEMENTATION AND DEVELOPMENT
,
2003
.
[14]
Bryan T. Adey,et al.
Overview of existing Bridge Management Systems
,
2010
.
[15]
Hugh Hawk,et al.
Bridge Life-cycle Cost Analysis
,
2003
.
[16]
Helena Gervásio,et al.
Comparative life-cycle analysis of steel-concrete composite bridges
,
2008
.
[17]
Barbara C. Lippiatt,et al.
Building for Environmental and Economic Sustainability (BEES): Software for Selecting Cost-Effective Green Building Products | NIST
,
2001
.